I spent some time reading the links your provided about self-organized criticality and the use of this concept as a fundamental theory of mind. It was very interesting but the simplicity of the idea is something that I don't accept as a reasonable principle of mind. The active principles of mind may one day be defined using a constrained list of methods where complexity emerges but that does not mean that the concepts can be accurately defined with a few principles. My point of view is that a computer program can use the principles of referential relations as the fundamental implementation of artificial intelligence and these might be described using a constrained list but the conceptual references have to have the potential of great complexity and this complexity has to be based on the complexity of interactions between referential concepts not the simplicity (or the relative simplicity) of the underlying principles of representation. Jim Bromer
Jim Bromer On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > This reminds me of Self-organised criticality and Per Bak's simple idea on > how it could be applied to learning in neural networks. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality > > > https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140403-a-fundamental-theory-to-model-the-mind/ > > I find the simplicity of the idea very attractive. I doubt that it is > enough, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up playing a central role in > AGI. > > Best, > Telmo. > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There is a lot of evidence that humans, like other animals, learn >> incrementally. However, my belief is that because we use ideas in different >> ways a new idea can interact with other ideas. There are moments when >> something that is learned incrementally can be leveraged to produce leaps >> of insight. I call this knowledge structural because it means that an idea >> can suddenly provide some greater structure to knowledge related to a >> particular subject. The new increment of knowledge that triggers the >> structural insight may or may not be the key that provides the leverage of >> the structure. It may be that some new piece of knowledge just helps to >> crystalize some structure in a way that helps the learner to better utilize >> other knowledge. >> >> In programming and computational mathematics we find distinctions between >> things like operators and operands and you have to be able to find >> distinctions between other different parts of a computation if you want to >> use mathematics creatively. However, I think it is obvious that the >> situation is more dynamic and more fluid in thought. Some information may >> play some role based on some other information so that it can react with >> some other information and we just cannot categorize how some piece of >> information might be used before hand. An AGI program has to be able to >> find how information can work together to create greater structures of >> knowledge. But for this to happen, the program has to be designed to >> provide the structure that will ensure that the potential to build learned >> structures is there. >> Jim Bromer >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/25129130-ee4f7d55> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
